A half-dozen conservative bloggers have united and will all have the same post
on their blogs today in an effort to help defeat President Obama. Please read
this post in its entirety and be sure to go visit each bloggers site via the
links. I would also encourage anyone to reblog or link this post to get the
word out to as many people as possible. Romney may not be the first choice for
some of these contributors, but we can all agree that Obama must go so help us
spread the word! Join us to help the undecided vote to stop the destruction of
America!

President Obama has been on a chest-thumping tour touting the success of
the bailouts both in the auto industry as well as the financial
industry.Supporters and critics alike have focused upon what constitutes
a success.Some will calculate the cost to the taxpayers.Others will
focus on the jobs saved.It is these glass half-empty/half-full arguments
that highlight the crux of the problem.Bailouts v. bankruptcy is not an
apples to apples comparison.
A bailout by its very nature is the epitome of a reward for past
indiscretions.The idea is how best to cushion the blow and alleviate the
pain.The fear card plays a big role here as witnessed a full-fledged
campaign to warn us of the disaster awaiting should we decline to
bailout a failing company/industry.Then to make it worse,we saw
government picking the winners and losers in the fallout.
A bankruptcy is intended as a poison pill as much as a legal recourse to
alleviate a failing business model.It's called moral hazard.It is
painful by design so it will have a preventative effect.The path chosen
by Obama eliminates this.Companies/industries know they can operate with
high risk or inefficient practices when an implied guarantee of a
bailout is always awaiting.
The key difference is that implied guarantee.It enables risky behavior
and distorts the free market.And why not?When you know there is reward
as opposed to pain available,who wouldn't engage in high risk/high
reward practices?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the housing bubble
accordingly.AIG and the other players in the banking sector engaged in
the derivatives market with our 401(k)s and pensions as monopoly money.
Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices.Bankruptcy
penalizes it.So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with
his bailouts,you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy
that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that
will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.

Politicians lie. There is nothing that is earth-shattering about this
statement. Presidents are politicians and they generally adhere to the
stereotype.
There have been exceptions to the rule, but Presidents like Washington and Garfield are few and far between.
Sometimes presidents lie with the best of intentions. More often than not they lie to protect themselves and their careers.
But while the reasons presidents lie are probably as numerous as the
lies that they tell, the depth of mendacity demonstrated by President
Obama is unique in American political history. It is not merely that he
will do or say anything to remain in office, but the reason he will do
or say anything to remain in power - his hatred of American pre-eminence
on the world stage. We have never had a president who felt it his
mission to reduce the nation to benefit other nations.
It is an established fact that Obama is a devotee of Saul Alinsky - a
completely amoral - "ends justify any means" individual. Obama has
learned his lessons well and seeks to bring America down a peg by any
and all means necessary. Obama is apparently quite comfortable with
Lenin's adage, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
It is only when one understands Obama's motivations and complete lack of
morality, that one can understand how this callous president could
refer to the death of an American ambassador and other Americans in
Libya as "bumps in the road." One has to wonder, where does that road
lead?

Barack Hussein Obama was swept into office by a wave of voters willing
to give the new guy a shot. He offered a chance to redeem America from
its original sin and at the same time promised to end the bi-partisan
bickering of politics as usual in the DC beltway. He was a relative
unknown on the national scene and took every advantage of that fact.
After all, when a candidate doesn't have a record to campaign on, it's
much easier to paint himself as the elixir for the times.
Four years later, we know a lot more about the man at the helm of our
ship of state and it should be clear that Obama was either not ready for
the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised.
In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and
draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and
right then the cure was worse than the disease. The patient should
switch doctors, stat.
Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the
supposed divide between the races, a flag his surrogates in the media
fly on his behalf but one he seldom raises himself, as if to stay above
the fray. Indeed, the subject of Obamas race is ever in play by the
media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were
promised, namely, more division, not less.
Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged
by actions and results. That time is now. Americans must look at the man
without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern what he and
his party have accomplished in 4 years. We must decide if we are
pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America:
An America that believes the Constitution is flawed and must be remade or flat-out ignored.
An America that owes the world an endless apology.
An America that is not the last bastion if freedom in the world, not
that shining city on the hill, but just another third world ghetto.
My friends, America deserves and demands better than Barack Hussein
Obama's dismal vision for our future. We must make that message crystal
clear on November 6th in numbers that cannot be denied or ignored.

Obama came into office with zero experience in anything useful. But,
narcissist that he is, he was sure that because his middle name was
Hussein and because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia when he was a
child and because he had dreams from his Kenyan father that he could
single-handedly resolve all the problems between the Muslim nations of
the world and America.
Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know
that he has ben a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him,
like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable
people in foreign affairs that he can find. He would never nominate a
woman to be Secretary of State whose only claim to fame was that she
married a sexual predator who was once President of the United States.
We know that a President Romney would never make a trip to Cairo to
apologize for Americas past actions in the area nor would he bow to a
Saudi king. A president Romney would not have ended the war in Iraq
without maintaining a large air base we had there for strategic reason
just because the Iraqi government, that we helped to bring about, didn't
want us there. A president Romney would never have announced two years
in advance our withdrawal from Afghanistan giving the Taliban no reason
to seek peace. A President Romney would have supported rebels in Iran in
2009. He would never have permitted his Secretary of State to train
young Arabs from North Africa on how to organize protests against their
governments. There never would have been an Arab Spring and there would
still be the tenuous stability in the Middle-East held for the last
forty years. Our embassies would not have been left unprotected and we
would not have a dead ambassador and three of his staff in Libya. And,
if there had been attacks on our people in that region, a president
Romney would not have tried to place the blame on some stupid You Tube
video when it was obviously a well planned terrorist attack. And,
following some such attack, a president Romney would not have gone
before the UN General Assembly and, at first defend our constitutionally
protected right of free speech, only to turn around and say that we
can't let the world be won by those who insult Islam. And, a President
Romney would not be seeking emergency aid for Egypt just after their
Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, stood in front of the UN General
Assembly and told America where they could stuff it.
A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations,
not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we
can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of
strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the
Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks
out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?
On November 6, 2012, vote for Mitt Romney!

I didn't support Romney in the primaries. However, after it became clear
that he was going to become our nominee, I had an offline discussion
with a smart and passionate Ron Paul supporter.
We discussed the wisdom of voting for, what amounts to, my second choice
candidate. We bantered back and forth a few times then I said "no
matter how bad you think Romney is, he would never nominate a left-wing
lunatic like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court." And I
added, "Justice Kennedy has announced he plans to retire sometime after
the 2012 election and Ginsberg is no spring chicken."
What is worse, I said this to my passionate Libertarian friend before
Justice Roberts flipped his vote in the ObamaCare debacle underscoring
the urgency of getting more Constitutionalist Justices on the Court.
Intellectually, I understand why some passionate Libertarians and
Conservatives want to sit out the upcoming elections. They are tired of
holding their noses while voting for 'the lesser of two evils.'
However, the prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court
appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should
frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.
Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative
reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next
25 years.
If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.

President Obama calls his energy strategy "all of the above". That's actually a good
description, because he's gung-ho for everything that's above the earth and
abosolutely opposed to using anything found below ground.
Coal?
Not in his plans. And he's shuttering coal power plants as fast as he can,
putting thousands of Americans
out of work in the process. When he said he'd bankrupt the coal industry, he meant it.
Oil? Sorry,
we can't drill for it, and we surely
can't build pipelines to deliver it.
Natural Gas? Only if it magically rises to the surface without drilling or
fracking.
Nuclear? He's instituted a
moratorium on uranium mining. Harry Reid has ensured
there's no place to store nuclear waste. And so there are no new plants on the horizon.
But solar power is the future! Just so long as you don't put all those solar panels
anywhere near
an endangered species or pristine wetland. And wind turbines are all
the rage, unless they'd block the Kennedy clan's view or
make too much noise near Barbra Streisand's house.
The real danger with all these changes to the power grid is
instability. Those coal
plants provide a valuable service, keeping the flow of electricity constant in the
face of varying demand. Solar cells can't do that at night (or in the rain). And
wind turbines don't spin without wind. So you can't flick a switch and expect them
to work on a moment's notice. We'd better get used to the idea of brownouts, and probably
rolling blackouts too.
Just imagine the next hot summer day when you go to switch on your air
conditioner only to discover that Obama's "Smart Grid" has decided you're not on
the list for extra electricity today. Because that's what's coming if we don't
replace the 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity Obama has mothballed in the
cause of saving the planet.
Strangely though President Obama insists
everyone should drive an electric car. I suspect he's unclear on exactly where
the electricity comes from, because as the EPA shuts down many of our existing power
plants the supply of electricity keeps shrinking.
Hanging solar panels on lampposts won't take up the slack either.
Yet if the price of gasoline keeps going up we may have no choice. California's
environmental regulations are generally held up as a model for the nation. And
thanks to those regulations California leads the way in gas prices, topping $5
per gallon. They're well on their way to fulfilling
Steven Chu's dream.
So what's a concerned citizen to do? The good news is Governor Romney plans to
take
a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling
for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American
ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our
nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.
When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that
we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced
approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green
technologies too.

And there you have it. Six very good reasons to vote against Barack Obama and
for Mitt Romney. On November 6th the choice is yours.
Choose wisely!

The BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, is interviewed by The Telegraph. Take a read although you may need a strong stomach to read Jeremy Bowen's words. Here's three paragraphs to give you a flavour:

'In 2004 the BBC commissioned the Balen Report on its reporting of the Middle
East. It subsequently refused to release the document on the grounds that it
was the result of an internal editorial exercise. An application under the
Freedom of Information Act to have the report made public was rejected by
the Supreme Court this year, but the corporation, which reportedly spent
£350,000 to keep its findings private, was left facing charges of hypocrisy
and a cover-up, amid rumours that its coverage, including Bowen’s, had been
found to be anti-Israeli.

Bowen came in for more direct criticism in 2009 when a pro-Israel group in the
United States accused him of bias against Israel, citing radio and online
reports on the history of the Six Day War. He was said to have breached BBC
guidelines on accuracy and impartiality 24 times during the reports, but the
BBC Trust only fully or partially upheld three of the allegations. No
disciplinary action was taken. “The trust got into an overly complicated
complaints procedure which, I think I’m right in saying, they have now
simplified. They had a panel of laymen who had to try and pronounce on quite
complex issues of Middle Eastern politics and they were non-specialists. I
thought the basis on which they made their decision was wrong.”

He also dismisses claims that the death of Abed changed him. “It was very
traumatic, but there is a strange narrative put about by certain pro-Israel
anti-BBC campaign groups that somehow my brain chemistry was altered by it
and I can’t help myself and I have to have a go at Israel whenever I can. It
is not the case, I take each case on its merits.”'

My views on the BBC's cover-up of the Balen Report are well known. It is inconceivable to me that the Balen Report found anything other than anti-Israel bias at the BBC, first because it's so obvious and second because why else would the BBC be so keen to keep it under wraps.

You were found out in 2009 Jeremy, just accept it.

I don't believe that the death of Abed changed his brain chemistry and I've not heard of that theory. However I find it hard to believe that the death of a friend at the hands of the Israelis has made Jeremy Bowen anything other than more biased against Israel. It would be a natural reaction for most people.

Further to this and previous, the BBC have finally responded and it's the old brush-off.

NewsOnline Complaints

26 Oct (2 days ago)

to me

Mr Goat,

Thank you for your email. We're sorry you appear not to have had a response.Jeremy Bowen did not"choose" this date; he is very busy and it was the earliest day he could fit this event into his schedule.He has acknowledged thisin his tweets to you. However, this will not be the only such event with him, so there will be other opportunities for those who may consider they were excluded to take part.

This was not a debate but a question and answer session so there is no questionin our view of it being biased.

I have replied:
'Your explanation of why that day was allocated is not believable or acceptable. An unbiased Middle East Editor would have Rosh Hashonah noted in his diary and accordingly would not schedule a Q&A for that date. The bare fact is that the BBC's Middle East Editor held a Q&A session on one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar when the vast majority of Jews would not be able to take part. This decision disenfranchised the vast majority of Jews from taking part. Jeremy Bowen would not dream of scheduling such an event for a Friday during Ramadan.
As to your glib comment that 'this will not be the only such event with him, so there will be other opportunities for those who may consider they were excluded to take part.', I find that offensive. Should Jews be satisfied that at some unspecified future date we will be allowed to contribute to a Q&A with the BBC's Middle East Editor? Muslims and Jews every time but Jews only occasionally? Do Jews not pay the BBC licence fee?
I want to take this complaint further, how do I do so?
Regards
NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

Hmmm "How happy could I be with either, Were t'other dear charmer away!" as Louis Mazzini tenth Duke of Chalfont muses at the end of Kind Hearts and Coronets - one of my top 10 favorite films of all time.

Quite regularly on the BBC, topical humorists of a left-wing bent remind us that The Daily Mail supported the Nazis before the Second World War. This is used as a reason to ignore anything the Mail says now. This line of reasoning is wrong, inconsistent because the people who supported Stalin's Soviet Union, as the communist state killed many millions of people, are not subject to the same degree of censure. More oddly the BBC's Director General, Lord Reith, also praised the Nazis:

9 March 1933 “I am pretty certain… that the Nazis will
clean things up and put Germany on the way to being a real power in
Europe again. They are being ruthless and most determined.”

After the July 1934 Night of The Long Knives, in which the Nazis
ruthlessly exterminated opponents and many Jews “I
really admire the way Hitler has cleaned up what looked like an
incipient revolt.”

After Czechoslovakia was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1939 “Hitler continues his magnificent efficiency.”

Also do note that Lord Reith's daughter, Marista Leishman, revealed that her father in the 1930s did everything possible to keep Winston Churchill and other anti-appeasement Conservatives off the airwaves.

You don't hear about that much on the BBC do you?

Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail were indeed editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists until there was violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia that year.
So The Mail's naziu supporting past is relevant although it ended in 1934 but the BBC's is not although Lord Reith was still praising Nazi Germany in 1939. Odd double standards at the BBC.

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Judge for yourself, first an interview with Andrew Neil for the BBC's Daily Politics

And then with Adam Boulton on Sky

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the veracity of Ed Balls's line of argument but just look at Ed Balls' staring eyes in the last part of the Sky video; is Ed 'Blinky' Balls trying desperately not to blink?

Writing of Ed Balls's relationship with the truth reminded me of a piece I wrote in 2011. Here's a long extract that you might find interesting (where did I find the time to write such long pieces as recently as 2011?):

'... the documents published overnight in The Telegraph that Ed Balls was a
prime mover in the Gordon Brown campaign to replace Tony Blair as Labour
leader and Prime Minister are quite shocking. Shocking but not
surprising as I think we all knew where Ed Balls' loyalties lay and what
he and his fellow conspirators were up to. However there was never any
solid proof and so Ed Balls could use 'plausible deniability' tactics;
no longer!

The plot, codenamed Project Volvo, was launched as London was under
attack from Islamic terrorists in the 7/7 attacks; great timing?

It is also being reported that Mr Brown ordered Mr Balls to take a
'brutal' approach to cleanse the Labour Party of Mr Blair's influence.

If this subject interests you and it should, then The Telegraph is a
must read to today as it lays out for us what Ed Balls was up to and
what his priorities were during some difficult days during the last
Labour government.

Do read through the documents they are fascinating, here's some of what The Telegraph discovered:Here The Telegraph report on who Ed Balls' co-conspirators were and there are some familiar names (my emphasis):

'Around him, Mr Brown formed his “small group” of six that would win him the job of prime minister. Other members included Ed Miliband, now Labour leader, and Douglas Alexander, the current shadow foreign secretary. The team was completed by Sue Nye, another long-term aide; Spencer Livermore, who became Mr Brown’s director of political strategy in No 10; and Ian Austin, a former spin doctor who became an MP in 2005.

In July 2005, each of the members of the “small group” was given responsibility for different parts of the campaign.

Ms
Nye, who became Baroness Nye last year, was in charge of recruiting
business leaders and managing the relationship with the Parliamentary
Labour Party, alongside Mr Brown. Tom Watson, Dawn Primarolo and
Ann Keen were seen as key supporters in the Commons, as was Nick
Brown, who was later Chief Whip.

Mrs
Keen, who lost her seat last year, was Mr Brown’s ministerial aide,
while Miss Primarolo was a long-serving Treasury minister. Mr Watson
was one of several junior ministers who were to resign in 2006,
forcing Mr Blair to tell the country he would be gone within a year.

Several figures were considered for managing the business aspects of the
coup. Shriti Vadera, a former UBS banker who became a minister in
2007, was a key Treasury aide with excellent City links.

Alan Parker, the founder and chairman of the Brunswick Group PR company, was named as an adviser on image issues.

An
unexpected name is that of Louis Susman, whom Barack Obama appointed as
US Ambassador to Britain in 2009. He is mentioned in relation to
fund-raising, though it is not clear what role he ever played, if
any, in the plot.

Mr
Miliband was in charge of developing policy, with the MP Michael Wills,
later justice minister, and the Brown adviser Neal Lawson. Wilf
Stevenson, who also became a peer last year, led the Smith Institute,
the think tank where Brownite theories and concepts were developed.

Stewart
Wood, a senior adviser to Mr Brown and a fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, was also handed policy matters. He has also been ennobled. Eric
Salama is another key figure. Mr Salama is the chief executive of
Kantar, part of the global communications company WPP, and was
considered for a senior policy role.
Mr Livermore handled Mr Brown’s image, to make him a plausible prime
ministerial figure. MT Rainey, an advertising specialist, and the film
director Anthony Minghella were also suggested.

American
consultants Bob Shrum and Stan Greenberg were involved in polling on
Mr Brown and Mr Blair’s strengths and weaknesses . Mr Austin was in charge of media strategy, dominated by the spin doctor Damian McBride.'

Here
The Telegraph show the document showing Gordon Brown's demands for the
transfer of power from Tony Blair to himself; nowhere is a democratic
vote mentioned.

Here The Telegraph show a presentation that includes this does list Gordon Brown’s 'weaknesses':

'Humourless, dour, moody, aggressive, unapproachable'

And
that's from one of his supporters. It would be interesting why his
supporters thought that someone 'moody, aggressive, unapproachable'
would make a good Prime Minister. Maybe Ed Balls saw something of
himself in the 'moody' and 'aggressive' descriptions?

Of course the release of this documents raises some very interesting
questions for the Labour Party and for the wider British public. More of
those questions in a moment, but it would be interesting to know how
The Telegraph obtained these documents? I suppose one should ask whose
interests are served by the release of these documents? It would be
tempting to say the Conservatives but I think that their long-term
interests are served by keeping the vile Ed Balls near the top of the
Labour party. Ed Balls turns so many people off with his smirking,
aggressive and repellent personality as showcased almost every time he
is interviewed, even by a friendly BBC interviewer. Maybe the leak came
from a disgruntled Blairite, maybe someone (or a supporter of someone)
who has recently lost out to Ed Balls and/or another of Gordon Brown's
inner circle (such as Ed Miliband). Now who might fit that description?

Leaving that aside, the release of these documents leaves the Labour
party having to face the facts that the people who plotted to depose
their party leader (the man who won them three general elections) and
the people who denied so plotting, are now at the very top of their
party. What sort of loyalty can the likes of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and
Douglas Alexander expect now that their past actions have been so
exposed? Also I wonder how other figures in the Labour party feel now
that they know for certain that Ed Balls is a plotter, who might he plot
against next?

Meanwhile one Telegraph commentator seems to have rowed back from describing Ed Miliband in rather derogatory terms. Toby Young's piece
is entitled 'The Telegraph's scoop will cut short Ed Miliband's time as
Labour leader' but its URL indicates that another earlier title may
have been dropped -
'http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100091597/telegraphs-extraordinary-scoop-is-proof-that-ed-miliband-is-gordon-browns-bch'
I presume that last word was 'bitch'...

The BBC could not really ignore this story but they are downplaying it. There is just one article
that I can find on it and that is already just the number 5 story on
the front page. The coverage is sparse and ignores some of the more
explosive revelations.The story does not even feature in the BBC's top
stories on the Radio 4 08:30 news bulletin, anyone would think they were
trying to downplay the story; I wonder why?

'The investigation will raise questions about whether the new government was involved in the leaking of the papers.'

Yes that's the real story!

One fact that seems to be garnering too little interest is that Ed Balls
has now been proved to be a liar. Ed Balls has denied several times
that there was a plot to overthrow Tony Blair, he has indeed previously
insisted he had "never ever" been involved in attempts to undermine
colleagues. take a read of this Guardian piece from July 2010 about Ed Balls' BBC interview:

'Ed Balls, a Labour leadership contender and a close ally of
Gordon Brown, today rejected suggestions that he took part in an
"insurgency" against Tony Blair and insisted the differences between the
two men amounted only to "creative tensions".

In a fractious interview on the BBC, he dismissed as "total, absolute
nonsense" any idea that he had been party to a coup against Blair in
2006, which led to him announcing his intention to quit the following
year.

...

He said: "I was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was never
involved in an insurgency, I was very close to Gordon Brown but I also
saw Tony Blair very regularly, but we had our disagreements."'

In the light of the recently released documents why should anyone trust a word Ed Balls says again?'

Did you spot some of the names in that article? Not just Ed 'Blinky' Balls but Ed 'Junior' Miliband, Douglas Alexander, and the ever delightful pair of Tom Watson & Damian McBride. It's odd how this Telegraph story disappeared so quickly from the media and how the BBC managed to minimise any coverage at the time. I just thought you might like to be reminded of the story...

Listen especially to the questions Glenn Beck asks from 7:07 to 8:13 and ask yourself why these sorts of questions are not being asked by any mainstream news channel or even the BBC? Are the unbiased media so set on helping Barack Obama be reelected that even a pretense of unbiased reporting is beyond them?

The BBC are relentless in informing us that 'Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard has been asked by the BBC to investigate why the Newsnight investigation
was dropped last year. He will look at whether there were any
management failings by the BBC. He will also look at the handling by the
Newsnight investigation of material that might have been of interest to
the police or relevant authorities.'

Oddly the BBC seem completely uninterested in telling us that prior to working at Sky he had worked at the BBC. BFBS tells us that:

'Nick Pollard, 58, has had a distinguished career in British journalism
spanning four decades, and has extensive experience in domestic and
international news coverage. Nick says he "sort of fell into journalism"
when he joined the Birkenhead News on leaving school at 17 and has
enjoyed it ever since. He has worked for BBC Radio News, BBC TV News,
and, for 13 years, ITN where he was Executive Producer of News at Ten.
Most recently he was Head of Sky News for 10 years from 1996 to 2006,
scooping four RTS 'News Channel of the Year' Awards in a row and winning
two BAFTAS for Best News Coverage.'

Wikipedia tells us that:

'He was born in Birkenhead and was educated at Birkenhead School.[1] He started his career in journalism as a reporter at the Birkenhead News, and later worked for the BBC in Liverpool and London.[1] He was executive producer at ITN for 13 years, before joining Sky News where he worked from 1996 to 2006.[2][3] In 2009 he was appointed as chief executive of the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC), responsible for providing broadcasting and cinema services to British forces and their families.[2]'

Alongside the above note the news as revealed by Guido Fawkes that the law firm chosen to 'gather evidence for these two inquiries has... previously defended the BBC in litigation cases on numerous occasions' and that 'No less than six of their current lawyers have worked for the BBC in the past.' Also that 'Most interestingly of all, this year Reed Smith hosted a series of conferences entitled “Protecting the Media”.

I've been following the Jimmy Saville affair with some interest, watching and listening as various BBC bigwigs twisted and turned in the unfamiliar glare of scrutiny. I heard parts of the DCMS quetioning of George Entwistle and the Radio 4 Media Show last night where Steve Hewlett asked some direct and pertinent questions of David Jordan, the Director of Editorial Policy and Standards at the BBC.Take a listen and enjoy the sound of a BBC chief frantically trying to explain without saying anything of note.

Meanwhile we have heard that BBC Trust Chairman Chris Patten has warned the government not to question the
corporation's editorial independence in relation to its handling of the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal. Thinly veiled threats from a CINO to a dripping wet Conservative led coalition. In any case, the BBC tell me that 'The purpose of the BBC Trust is to work on behalf of licence fee payers,
ensuring the BBC provides high quality output and good value for all UK
citizens, and to protect the independence of the BBC.' Did you spot that 'work on behalf of licence fee payers' not try and stop anyone criticising or investigating alleged wrongdoing at the BBC.

It seems to me that there is a lot more to come out re the BBC in the Savile affair.
I don't think anyone doubts that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile. It also seems that he seemed not to bother covering up his activities whilst working on BBC premises.
So how did managers not know what was happening on BBC premises when others have admitted that they knew? A BBC employee was having sexual relations with underage girls on BBC premises and rather than censure him or fire him, the BBC continued to employ him and use him to front more programmes, including ones that involved him being put in close proximity to children.

If all the above is true, and does anyone think it isn't, then how can the BBC avoid taking corporate responsibility for the abuse?

I have complained about this twice
so far but have yet to receive a reply or even a case code. I am not
going to let this drop, please have the decency to respond to my
complaint.
The BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, chose one of the holiest
days in the Jewish calendar to hold a Q&A on the Middle East. That
disenfranchised all religious Jews and the vast majority of not
particularly religious Jews. In response to my query re this choice of
date Jeremy Bowen responded via Twitter that "the timing could be
better" that he "did know it was Jewish New Year" but that it was ok
because "it doesn't stop quite a few Jews using social media!".
Jeremy Bowen's choice of day for this Q&A clearly discrminated
against religious Jews, who would be unable to take part in the Q&A
and thus created a biased debate.
Surely an unbiased BBC Middle East Editor would take care to ensure that
no interested parties would be unable to take part in the Q&A.
Would Jeremy Bowen have held such a Q&A on a Friday during Ramadan?
When considering this matter, do bear in mind that eremy Bowen's
anti-Israel bias was confirmed by the Editorial Standards Committee of
the BBC Trust who published a report into three complaints about him in
April 2009. The Editorial Standards Committee upheld three complaints
against Jeremy Bowen on grounds of accuracy and impartiality.

Monday, 22 October 2012

"Examples of the ways in which antisemitism [sic] manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel … could include … applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior [sic] not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."http://instmed.org/2012/10/22/are-labour-meps-anti-semitic/

My views about the BBC's Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen are well documented. I think it fairly clear that he is biased against Israel. So I was intrigued to read Richard Millett's piece that reports the anti-Israel and worse sentiments of former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn.

It would seem that such sentiments are de rigeur in the BBC Middle East department, and indeed beyond. I presume that is why the BBC are so keen and have spent so much licence payers money on keeping the Balen Report secret.

Whilst the BBC persists in portraying the new Egyptian President as a moderate voice, evidence to the contrary abounds. The latest example is reported by The Commentator:

'A new video has shown Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood
President taking part in prayers this weekend as the preacher urged
Allah to, "destroy the Jews".

In footage obtained by MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research
Institute), Morsi was shown praying intensely as cleric Futouh Abd
Al-Nabi Mansour, the local head of religious endowment, declared, “Oh
Allah, absolve us of our sins, strengthen us, and grant us victory over
the infidels. Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah,
disperse them, rend them asunder. Oh Allah, demonstrate Your might and
greatness upon them. Show us Your omnipotence, oh Lord.”

The service took place in Matrouh governorate’s el-Tenaim Mosque and was screened on Egyptian state television on Friday.'

Why is there not a word about this on the BBC news? It's almost as though they are trying to protect the Muslim Brotherhood from criticism and to hide the rampant anti-Semitism that exists across much of the Muslim world.

I don't speak German, most of the words and phrases I know come from Second World War comics I read as a child. However I do know one proper word and that is 'Schadenfreude'. If you don't know what Schadenfreude means then let me tell you; it means pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.
The news that the BBC news department is in apparent turmoil gave me some pleasure but then I read that the BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson has said:

"This is the worst crisis that I can remember in my nearly 50 years at the BBC. I don't think the BBC has handled it terribly well.
...
All we have as an organisation is the trust of the people the people that watch us and listen to us and if we don't have that, if we start to lose that, that's very dangerous I think for the BBC."

It would seem that of the last Labour misgovernment, one was blind in one eye (Gordon Brown) and one had partial deafness (Jack Straw). So that's 'see no evil' and 'hear no evil'. Somehow I don't think I'll find a 'speak no evil' amongst that lot.

Just before the 8am news on Radio 4's Today programme this morning was a piece about Saudi Arabia's first female film-maker. The piece included a list of the restrictions placed upon women in Saudi Arabia: unable to drive, to work, to associate with men who aren't family members etc. etc. etc. Of course these restrictions were described as being in place because Saudi Arabia was a 'conservative' country. for the BBC it is always good to associate bad things with Conservatives, subliminal messages rule! However what also struck me was that the BBC have in the past ran little pieces attacking Israel for some inequality that women allegedly suffer from in Israel and yet here was a report on life of women in Saudi Arabia and the restrictions were just 'conservative', there was no horror, no censure.

Sunday, 14 October 2012

The BBC still have several reports on the Jenin 'massacre' on their news website. One is here and is titled 'Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'
The report contains some prime examples of Palestinian/BBC lies and distortion, including:

'A British forensic expert who has gained access to the West Bank city of Jenin says evidence points to a massacre by Israeli forces.
Prof Derrick Pounder, who is part of an Amnesty International team granted access to Jenin, said he has seen bodies lying in the streets and received eyewitness accounts of civilian deaths.
The Dundee University expert said the Amnesty investigation has only just begun but Palestinian claims of a massacre were gaining foundation as the team continued its analysis.
He said: "The truth will come out, as it has come out in Bosnia and Kosovo, as it has in other places where we've had these kinds of allegations.
"I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn't lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see."
The professor said recovering the bodies would be difficult because many buildings collapsed during bombardment.
He said: "We know there are families who were there and killed and buried.
"We were on the ruins yesterday and two elderly men came forward, each of them pointed to where their houses had been and one of them told us that 10 members of his family were buried under the rubble."
...
A United Nations special envoy described the the devastation as "horrific beyond belief".
...
Palestinians claim hundreds of bodies are buried beneath the rubble, but Mr Shoval said only about 65 bodies had been recovered, of which five were civilians.'

In 2002 it might have been understandable how a news organisation, especially one opposed to Israel's right to exist, might allow such distortions onto their news website. But 10 years later after a UN report was issued that indicated that in fact 52 Palestinians had been killed and that more than half of those were combatants and not civilians, should the report not have a correction added to it?

The UN report criticised the Palestinians and not just the Israelis for having exposed civilians to danger. Should the BBC report not contain that extra information?

Much of Spain was ruled by Muslim conquerors from 711 and 1492, and Salafists believe that the territories the Muslims lost during the Spanish Reconquista still belong to them, and that they have a right to return and establish their rule there.

I write in support of a petition I have
recently signed, asking the British Foreign Office to alter its
position on what has become an unnecessarily vexed question concerning
the capital of Israel. As you know, Israelis are unanimous in regarding
Jerusalem as their capital, not Tel Aviv (where the British embassy is
currently located), nor Haifa nor Jaffa nor Petah Tikva nor anywhere
else in the country.

It is not hard to understand why the
first Israeli parliament chose Jerusalem as its seat, even before it had
built an edifice suitable to the needs of the men and women who sat in
its chamber. For many centuries, Jews in the Diaspora had clung to a
hope, not only of a return to the Holy Land, but to Jerusalem in
particular, the erstwhile home of its holiest Temple and the scene of so
many primary events in Jewish and Christian history. This might be
dismissed on the grounds that religious belief should not determine a
city’s status, but many cities derive their significance from their role
as religious centres, from Mecca and Medina (the latter having been the
first capital of Islam), to Karbala’ and Mashhad, to Varanasi (Benares)
and the Vatican City. This original attachment, intensified by daily
prayers while facing Jerusalem and repeated wishes to return there, was
later supplanted by the governmental, educational, trading, defensive,
legal and bureaucratic concerns of the capital of a secular state.

As a people who have been deeply
wronged in the past, Jews have tried to build their own state along
lines of equal citizenship, a single legal system, human rights, and the
protection of all holy places. But when Jordan occupied East Jerusalem
from 1949 to 1967, Muslim holy places were renovated while 58 synagogues
were destroyed and 38,000 Jewish graves were demolished. In addition,
Jews were not allowed to set foot in their own holy places, notably on
the Temple Mount. By contrast, when Israel retook Jerusalem in 1967, the
Temple Mount was handed to a Muslim authority on account of two Islamic
structures built on top of it, the al-Aqsa mosque and the Qubbat
al-Sakhra or Dome of the Rock.

Such depredations and a lack of
reciprocity have made Israelis wary of a Muslim takeover of East
Jerusalem, where the holiest sites are located: the Temple Mount, the
Western Wall (the Kotel), the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Mount of
Olives, and the famous Jewish graveyards, still vandalized horribly by
Arab criminals.

But the Palestinians have made it their
business to turn Jerusalem into a bastion of Islamic holiness, not just
because the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock are there, but
because they now claim that there has never been any Jewish connection
to the city or to the land of Israel. There was, they boast, no Jewish
Temple there. All Biblical references to the Temple and to Jerusalem as a
city built by King David are summarily and ahistorically dismissed.

Given that Muslims have demolished the
holy places of more than one religion, the Jews are rightly concerned
lest Jerusalem fall under Islamic control. In Saudi Arabia for decades
now, the government has been engaged in the destruction of Islamic holy
places in Mecca and Medina. Lest you think me in the grip of some
obscure fantasy, I should explain that the Wahhabi form of Islam, which
governs Saudi Arabia, is utterly ruthless in its condemnation of
anything that may be worshipped instead of God. They have demolished
over 200 historical sites to prevent pilgrims praying at them. In Mali, a
similar form of Islam – Salafism – has recently demolished dozens of
shrines belonging to the Sufi form of Islam. And in Iran, the government
has demolished all the holy places and cemeteries of the persecuted
Baha’i religion. Israel, by way of contrast, protects and nourishes the
large international headquarters and two holiest shrines of the Baha’is,
places now recognized as UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Is it surprising that the Israelis,
backed by Jews and others like myself round the world, are desperate to
maintain the integrity of the city, knowing as they do that Muslim Arab
rule would carry a greatly heightened risk to the Old City and its
environs? Israel has been generous towards Muslims and their holy
places, but they fear that if increased pressure were to come from Saudi
Arabia or Iran or, nearer to hand from Hamas, everything Jewish might
be eliminated. Palestinians have taken control of the Jewish Tomb of
Rachel, the third holiest site for Jews. They have commandeered most of
the Ma’arat Ha-Machpelah, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and made
access for Jews to a tiny space very difficult, as I can personally
attest. This is the second holiest site for Jews, containing as it does
the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah.

In the earliest days of Islam, the
Prophet Muhammad adopted from his Jewish neighbours the practice of
turning towards Jerusalem during the five daily prayers. But in the year
622, a few months after his arrival in Medina, he did an about turn
during one prayer session and from then on directed his followers to
pray towards his home city of Medina. He severed all direct ties with
Jerusalem, and in the centuries that followed Jerusalem was never a
provincial capital, nor the heart of a Muslim country or empire. Medina
in the first years, then Damascus, Baghdad, Istanbul and other cities
became the capitals of Islam. Cairo was the major city in North Africa,
Fez and Rabat capitals of the west, Esfahan, Tabriz, Tehran and others
the royal cities of Iranian dynasties. And so on. But Jerusalem was
never given such signal importance. This is significant. Palestinian
wishes to make Jerusalem defy centuries of insignificance would lock us
into a dispute that could last one thousand years.

For this reason, Jews everywhere will
refuse to relinquish a city that was theirs from the beginning, and they
will not reward people who have tried to take what was never theirs,
who have tried to deny the historical record concerning the Jewish
presence in a city that has been Jewish for 3000 years.
To confirm the place of Jerusalem at the heart of Jewish life and
prayers and as the eternal capital of their only homeland, Jews and
Israelis appeal to honest governments to do the right thing and
recognize that Jerusalem is the city where all the key aspects of
Israeli life converge. No Israeli regards Tel Aviv as his or her
capital. It is demeaning to treat Israelis as children by telling them
this or that foreign government knows better than they and their
government when it comes to designating Jerusalem their capital. I do
not think you treat any other capital city in this way. You do not call
Cork the capital of Ireland, nor Glasgow the capital of Scotland, nor
the cathedral city of St. David’s the capital of Wales, nor Marseilles
the capital of France. I do not believe the Foreign Office means to be
insulting in this matter; but if foreigners called Birmingham the
capital of England and the UK, would you not feel aggrieved?

Israel’s enemies call in all
seriousness for the destruction of the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
called on all Islamic nations to ‘exterminate Israel’ (my translation).
The Arabs, faced by their repeated failure to achieve this by military
means or terrorism, have turned to secondary means, saying that there
never any Jews in Israel, that they themselves were there first, an
impossible9000years
ago, and that Jerusalem was always an Arab city (a claim that directly
contradicts the accounts of Arab historians like al-Tabari). It is a
cheap and dishonest attempt to rewrite history itself and to introduce
confusion into a simple narrative. Denying the historicity and modern
reality of Israel, of Jerusalem, and of Israelis by refusing to liberate
the city from the string of fictions that has tied so many in knots,
allows falsehood and deceit to rule in international affairs. Britain is
still a great country that is admired the world round for its probity. I
do not doubt that you, like myself, wish to see that image remain
untarnished. But I have to say that it is in some measure tarnished when
you try to steal the Israeli capital from the Israelis themselves.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Denis MacEoin'

This letter has been sent by Denis MacEoin to William Hague and others at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Please spread the word... I wonder if Tarik Kafala, the BBC's Middle East Editor, could usefully learn something from this letter?

'...it turns out that number wasn't right. They forgot to include CALIFORNIA,
the most populous and economically depressed state in the country. A
source at the Labor Department brushed aside the omission by saying
that, sometimes, if a state office is under-manned they don't complete
all the jobless claims in time to report them to BLS.'

The BBC cannot find the time or space to report this. Now why would that be... The pro-Obama bias at the BBC is beyond a joke.

"Europe got through two civil wars in the 20th century and we have established peace thanks to the European Union. So the European Union is the biggest peacemaker in history" Herman Van Rompuy after EU was awarded Nobel Peace Prize.
Someone explain that at the time of both world wars there was no supranational body in Europe so these were not 'civil wars'. Also that the EU is not a country yet and whilst I have breath left in me,I will fight to ensure that the UK will not be a member of an EU superstar.

"Hamas must declare that it was formed to eliminate the state of Israel,
and that Israel is an entity that must disappear. [Hamas] should
declare that its political, military, and social plan is the liberation
of all the land by means of resistance"

The words of Kana'an 'Obeid, an advisor to the Hamas government in Gaza, in an October 8, 2012 article in the Hamas newspaper Al-Risala.

Is that clear enough for the British Foreign Office, for the BBC? Will the BBC even report these words?

Now the two Eds are alledly highly intelligent men, despite much evidence to the contrary. Whilst Stephanie Flanders is supposedly a highly intelligent woman, albeit historically in two cases with terrible taste in boyfriends. So please try and grasp what is in this video. Oh and where do you think the 'hump on the Laffer curve is?

Further to this post, the BBC have responded again and guess what, it's another brush-off:

'BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-1686621-QX7B8H
Dear Mr Maybeagoat
Reference CAS-1686621-QX7B8H
Thanks for your further contact.
We apologise for the delay in replying. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry that you had to wait on this occasion.
We appreciate your further comments regarding the use of 'the Prophet Muhammad'.
We forwarded your further concerns to Stephen Mitchell, now head of programmes for news, who explained in response that it remains the case that we have no policy in this area.
He added that on balance we tend not to ban words nor do we impose them on editors who have particular programmes with particular audiences in mind, unless there’s a difficult issue involved where deviation from a given set of words would cause problems.
He further added that we have no evidence that any of our many varied audiences are unable to understand our current usage, nor are we aware of any widespread offence caused by our current policy, hence our continued pragmatic approach within the space and time constraints of broadcast journalism.
Should you now wish to proceed to the second stage of the complaints process, it's now open to you to write to the Director of BBC News:
HelenBoadenComplaints@bbc.co.uk
Helen Boaden
Director
BBC News
Room 5601
Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ
Should you choose to escalate your complaint our procedures stipulate you do so within 20 days of receiving this correspondence.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Claire Jordan
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.'

So no real answer and an invitation to next contact Helen 'impartiality is in our DNA' Boaden. I will be doing this.
It is interesting that I am given a strict limit as to how much time I have to respond to this email. The BBC, as I was firmly told recently do not operate under the same restrictions:

'... we do not undertake to reply within 10 days although we will of course respond further to you as soon as we can. The time taken depends on the nature of the issue, how many other complaints we have to investigate and it can also be affected by practical issues, such as whether a production team is available or away on location.
For these reasons we ask you not to contact us further in the meantime and apologise if you experience any delay. This is an automatic email sent from an account which is not monitored so you cannot reply to this address. However if it does prove necessary to contact us, for example if you experience continued delay, please use our webform and quote any case number we provided.'

Whilst all are equal, it would seem that to the BBC, some are more equal than others.

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

'The BBC's
news coverage of religion, immigration and Europe is to be scrutinised
in an independent review following accusations of liberal bias.

Lord Patten, the BBC Trust
chairman, said the review was an acknowledgement of "real and
interesting" concerns from some quarters about the impartiality of the
BBC's news coverage.
The corporation has long faced accusations of liberal and leftwing bias from politicians and other sections of the media.

The
BBC's coverage of controversial topics including immigration, religion
and the European Union will come under the spotlight in the review,
which is expected to be published in early 2013. It may also include
coverage of Islamophobia.

It is the fifth impartiality review by
the BBC Trust, the corporation's governing body, and follows an internal
2007 report that described a "largely unconscious self-censorship" that
led to certain opinions being routinely under-represented.

Patten
said the review would focus on immigration, religion and Europe because
those are the topics that provoke most concern from the BBC's critics.
He told a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch on Wednesday: "The subjects we
thought we would cover, because they are subjects we have had criticism
from time to time about breadth of voice issues, are Europe, immigration
and religion.'

On the one hand these are all areas where the BBC is guilty of bias, on the other hand why not include Israel? Oh hold on the reviews have been ordered by Lord Patten, that answers that question then.

There is, of course, already in existence a report into the BBC impartiality, or otherwise, on the matter of Israel and the Palestinians. It's called the Balen Report, maybe the BBC are planning on releasing it very soon?

Whilst the mural that has been put up on a
building in Hanbury Street is not on council
property, the council is responding to a number of complaints
about it and working with the police in order to establish how
best to proceed.

The Revd. Preb. Alan Green, Area Dean of Tower Hamlets and
Rector of St John on Bethnal Green, who serves as Chair of the No
Place For Hate Forum, said: “Whilst I appreciate street art in
Tower Hamlets, it must always respect the principles of our diverse
community. This mural uses images that have for centuries been used
to incite hatred and persecution against Jewish communities. There
is no place for such incitement against any community in this
borough”.

Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman added: “I have
received a number of complaints that the ‘New World Order’ mural on
Hanbury Street has anti-Semitic images. I share these concerns.

"Whether intentional or otherwise the images of the bankers
perpetuate anti-Semitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish
domination of financial and political institutions. I am of the
view that, where freedom of expression runs the risk of inciting
racial hatred, as for example when the EDL attempted to march
in Tower Hamlets last year, then it is right that such
expression should be curtailed. I have, therefore, asked my
officers to do everything possible to see to it that this mural is
removed”.'

'A Tower Hamlets councillor complained to the Met Police Borough
Commander about the mural in Hanbury Street—in what was once the heart
of the East End’s thriving Jewish community.

Tory Group leader Peter Golds is due to meet senior police tomorrow (Thurs).

He has also asked Mayor Lutfur Rahman to use planning law to get the giant 20ft by 30ft work removed.

“I am horrified at this mural,” Cllr Golds told the Advertiser.

“It bears a similarity to anti-Semitic propaganda in pre-war Germany.

“As well as the anti Jewish overtones, there is even the quasi Masonic and dollar bill aspect to encourage conspiracy theory.

“The fact it has appeared over Yom Kippur and the Jewish New Year gives added menace. This is absolutely appalling.”

He is calling for prosecution under ‘race hate’ legislation after receiving a flood of complaints from the public.

The mural by an American artist calling himself Mear One has been condemned by Tower Hamlets Inter-Faith Forum.

Its
chairman, The Rev Alan Green, Church of England Area Dean and Rector of
St John on Bethnal Green, said: “This mural uses images that have for
centuries been used to incite hatred and persecution against Jewish
communities. There is no place for such incitement against any community
in this borough.”

Mayor Rahman has asked council officers to “do
everything possible” to remove the mural, which is on private property
owned by a curry restaurant businessman.

The Mayor said: “The
images of the bankers perpetuate anti-Semitic propaganda about
conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial and political
institutions.”

Comments have appeared on blogsites such as Rebel News for ‘dissident analysis for the global resistance’.
These include: “The characters on the two ends of the table are clearly caricatures of Jews—this mural is racist.”

'A mural in the heart of bohemian east
London has caused uproar among local politicians and community leaders
who have accused it of being anti-Semitic - in an area with a long
Jewish and immigrant history.

But Mear One, the American artist who painted the mural on a wall on
Hanbury Street, off Brick Lane, has denied charges of anti-Semitism.

The painting depicts caricatures of wealthy Jewish men playing Monopoly, using the backs of hunched people as their table.

In the background is a pyramid with an eyeball in it - synonymous
with the Illuminati conspiracy theory. To one side of the painting, a
man holds up a placard that says: "The New World Order is the enemy of
humanity."

"I have received a number of complaints that the 'New World Order'
mural on Hanbury Street has anti-Semitic images," said Lutfur Rahman,
the mayor of the local council, Tower Hamlets.

"I share these concerns. Whether intentional or otherwise the images
of the bankers perpetuate anti-Semitic propaganda about conspiratorial
Jewish domination of financial and political institutions.

"Where freedom of expression runs the risk of inciting racial hatred,
as for example when the EDL attempted to march in Tower Hamlets last
year, then it is right that such expression should be curtailed. I have
therefore asked my officers to do everything possible to see to it that
this mural is removed."

Rev Alan Green, a local dean, also condemned the picture.

"While I appreciate street art in Tower Hamlets, it must always respect the principles of our diverse community," he said.

"This mural uses images that have for centuries been used to incite
hatred and persecution against Jewish communities. There is no place for
such incitement against any community in this borough."'

IBT quotes Mear One's defence:

'"My mural is about class and privilege. The banker group is made up of Jewish and white Anglos," he wrote.

"For some reason they are saying I am anti-Semitic. This I am most definitely not.

"I believe in equality and brother- and sisterhood on a global scale.
What I am against is class. Ruling class - this is a problem and we
need humanisation."'

"I am horrified at this mural," Golds wrote in a letter to council bosses. "It bears an awful similarity to anti-Semitic propaganda produced in pre-war Germany.

"As well as the anti-Jewish overtones, there is even the quasi-Masonic (and dollar bill) aspect to encourage conspiracy theory.

"What will be done about the person or persons who has produced this and when will it be removed?

"The fact it has appeared over Rosh Hoshanah/Yom Kippur gives added menace."''

The fact that an apparently anti-Semitic mural can appear on the streets of London and there is equivocation about its significance speaks volumes about the real rise of anti-Semitism in the East End, the rest of London, the UK and Europe.

Where in the World - visitors since 16 May 2009

Copyright Information

All articles on this web site are copywrited by the author.

Some of the images and video on thus web site have been created by the author, others come from friends, public domain files, are used with permission, embedded from the original web site, or are legally displayable thumbnails. The author gives full permission to anyone to use anything from this site however they wish, as long as the items are not altered in order to deceive others or change their meaning, and they are attributed to the author or this web site.